• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chrysler workers canned for drinking on the job reinstated

RedAkston

Master of Shenanigans
Administrator
Moderator
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
53,923
Reaction score
39,715
Location
MS Gulf Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Chrysler workers canned for drinking on the job reinstated | Fox News

Chrysler workers who were fired or suspended two years ago after a MyFoxDetroit investigation found them drinking and goofing off during lunch break are back on the job. MyFoxDetroit first aired the footage of the Chrysler workers in September 2010. Video showed them in a park during the work day, drinking alcohol from bottles covered in brown paper bags and smoking what appeared to be marijuana.

With the auto giant having recently received a federal taxpayer bailout, and President Obama having visited the plant where the employees worked just months earlier, Chrysler appeared to take a zero-tolerance attitude. The company fired 13 workers, and suspended two.

But MyFoxDetroit reports that following a union-backed arbitration process, the employees were reinstated. This week, they came back to work.


So we the taxpayers bail out the unions car companies, employees are caught drinking on their lunch break, going back to work under the influence, are fired and now they get their jobs back? And some wonder why anyone has a problem with unions?
 
What does this have to do with the bailout, looks like a negotiation between the union and the company.

The taxpayers bailed out the struggling car company - FACT
This was not a negotiation, this was the ruling of an arbitrator - FACT
No way in hell these guys should have their jobs back, bailout or no.
 
What does this have to do with the bailout

looks like a negotiation between the union and the company.
Nothing really, the fact that they were bailed out simply places them under the political microscope so to say.

Yep, although the company apparently had reservations about the move as well:
Chrysler said in a statement that it does not support the decision to bring back the workers but would like to move on.

“While the company does not agree with the ultimate decision of the arbitrator, we respect the grievance procedure process as outlined in the collective bargaining agreement and our relationship with the (United Auto Workers union),” the company said

All in all a non story outside of political considerations at play. I myself work for and know of many a privatized, non union company that have reinstated employees who have demonstrated similar behavior, given they maintain quality and reliability in the near term, and sobriety in the future. A reasonable compromise depending on the individuals in question.
 
I wonder how many of the executives have a few drinks during their lunch breaks.


Tell me Hugh - is it OK to drink if your lunch is in a fine restaurant with a maitre'd and a sommelier?
 
I wonder how many of the executives have a few drinks during their lunch breaks.


Tell me Hugh - is it OK to drink if your lunch is in a fine restaurant with a maitre'd and a sommelier?

Nope, not even if it's not on the taxpayer's dime.
 
Chrysler workers canned for drinking on the job reinstated | Fox News




So we the taxpayers bail out the unions car companies, employees are caught drinking on their lunch break, going back to work under the influence, are fired and now they get their jobs back? And some wonder why anyone has a problem with unions?

This is one of the most profound examples of circular logic I have ever seen. A MAN WAS CAUGHT DRINKING ON THE JOB SO IMMEDIATELY THE UNION IS TO BLAME. Right. Reality check on aisle 6
 
This is one of the most profound examples of circular logic I have ever seen. A MAN WAS CAUGHT DRINKING ON THE JOB SO IMMEDIATELY THE UNION IS TO BLAME. Right. Reality check on aisle 6

This is one of the most profound examples of close-minded thinking I have ever seen. The union had nothing to do with the man getting caught drinking on the job, but they had a lot to do with him being given his job back. I wonder how many folks who are out of work and have been for some time deserve that job more than these idiots?
 
The taxpayers bailed out the struggling car company - FACT
This was not a negotiation, this was the ruling of an arbitrator - FACT
No way in hell these guys should have their jobs back, bailout or no.

So what's this have to do with the bailout?
 
This is one of the most profound examples of close-minded thinking I have ever seen. The union had nothing to do with the man getting caught drinking on the job, but they had a lot to do with him being given his job back. I wonder how many folks who are out of work and have been for some time deserve that job more than these idiots?

I'm not convinced anybody was impaired.

If their job performance wasn't affected whats the beef?
 
I'm not convinced anybody was impaired.

If their job performance wasn't affected whats the beef?

They're a HUGE insurance liability...that's the beef. If one of them is injured even if not "impaired" they must subject to drug test. The presence of alcohol in their system would be an insurance nightmare for the company. Not to mention if they are impaired they're not only putting themselves at risk, but anybody they work with as well...and if their impairment causes injury to another, that's an even BIGGER nightmare for the company.
 
Research Monday Cars.


End thread.
 
They're a HUGE insurance liability...that's the beef. If one of them is injured even if not "impaired" they must subject to drug test. The presence of alcohol in their system would be an insurance nightmare for the company. Not to mention if they are impaired they're not only putting themselves at risk, but anybody they work with as well...and if their impairment causes injury to another, that's an even BIGGER nightmare for the company.

Is it an issue to have A beer at lunch?

I know the evil unions are involved, but what about the over-reaching employers (who want to control ones behavior 24/7 when they only pay 8/7) and the insurance companies who rule by edict (the insurance industry sets automotive safety standards).

I guess what im saying is how much control are we accepting to eliminate ALL foreseeable risks?

(Might conceivably cause a problem someday for somebody, better just ban it outright instead of dealing with the hassle of punishing those who actually cause problems)
 
This is one of the most profound examples of circular logic I have ever seen. A MAN WAS CAUGHT DRINKING ON THE JOB SO IMMEDIATELY THE UNION IS TO BLAME. Right. Reality check on aisle 6

This is the attitude of Republicans towards unions now, but it wasn't always this way:

Republican_labor.jpg
 
Chrysler workers canned for drinking on the job reinstated | Fox News




So we the taxpayers bail out the unions car companies, employees are caught drinking on their lunch break, going back to work under the influence, are fired and now they get their jobs back? And some wonder why anyone has a problem with unions?

So why were they fired in the first place? For having a beer, smoking a cigarette and goofing off on their break? Where is the crime here faux news? If you fired everyone who had a beer, smoked a cigarette and goofed off on their lunch break there would be no one left working at faux news. there certainly would not be any middle management who loves taking lunches in places that serve alcohol. BTW liar news drinking on the job would be drinking while working, not on your lunch break where millions of americans every day have a drink. Hell, when I used to work for the corporate offices of pepsi our whole department would go out to a local bar and have lunch together. There was only about 8 of us, but many people drank.

Maybe the company stepped way out of line with firing these guys for doing something that can be done responsibly. Yes, you can have a beer or two without getting drunk. Oh, and as for the joint thing you have drug tests for a reason. You don't just fire them because some prude news reporter was snapping pictures and caught a guy doing something totally legal.

WTF does this have to do with the bailout anyway? This seems to be a story where the union actually helped people who were fired for the wrong reason. You are supposed to be against unions, not showing them protecting workers on their lunch break. I mean these guys even obeyed the law by drinking out of paper bags so as not to be openly drinking alcohol in public which was a prude law passed by the puritanical christian dip****s who drink like fishes anyway. Christ your saviour was made half of wine and yet you pretend like alcohol is the worst thing in the world.

yet another story of right wing BS over absolutely nothing. Seriously, it was their lunch break and as long as they returned sober enough and did their job then they did not do anything to get fired over to begin with.
 
This is the attitude of Republicans towards unions now, but it wasn't always this way:

Republican_labor.jpg

Yes, at one times Unions were a good thing until they became Big Business and overrun by racketeers. Now they will be supported by the Democrats, and vice versa.

These days there are laws to protect working people, and of course good reliable workers will always be at a premium.
 
So why were they fired in the first place? For having a beer, smoking a cigarette and goofing off on their break? Where is the crime here faux news? If you fired everyone who had a beer, smoked a cigarette and goofed off on their lunch break there would be no one left working at faux news. there certainly would not be any middle management who loves taking lunches in places that serve alcohol. BTW liar news drinking on the job would be drinking while working, not on your lunch break where millions of americans every day have a drink. Hell, when I used to work for the corporate offices of pepsi our whole department would go out to a local bar and have lunch together. There was only about 8 of us, but many people drank.

Maybe the company stepped way out of line with firing these guys for doing something that can be done responsibly. Yes, you can have a beer or two without getting drunk. Oh, and as for the joint thing you have drug tests for a reason. You don't just fire them because some prude news reporter was snapping pictures and caught a guy doing something totally legal.

WTF does this have to do with the bailout anyway? This seems to be a story where the union actually helped people who were fired for the wrong reason. You are supposed to be against unions, not showing them protecting workers on their lunch break. I mean these guys even obeyed the law by drinking out of paper bags so as not to be openly drinking alcohol in public which was a prude law passed by the puritanical christian dip****s who drink like fishes anyway. Christ your saviour was made half of wine and yet you pretend like alcohol is the worst thing in the world.

yet another story of right wing BS over absolutely nothing. Seriously, it was their lunch break and as long as they returned sober enough and did their job then they did not do anything to get fired over to begin with.

It's not like the first time this has happened.

Chrysler Auto Workers Caught Drinking & Smoking Pot - YouTube
 
They're a HUGE insurance liability...that's the beef. If one of them is injured even if not "impaired" they must subject to drug test. The presence of alcohol in their system would be an insurance nightmare for the company. Not to mention if they are impaired they're not only putting themselves at risk, but anybody they work with as well...and if their impairment causes injury to another, that's an even BIGGER nightmare for the company.

If it was one beer on an hour break they would not even be too impaired to drive back to work. The company stepped way out of line with this. had they drug tested them and found them too intoxicated to work then you would have a point, and if they were actually drinking on the job and not their lunch break you would have a point. however, neither was done and the employees were fired over some pictures without even determining if they were capable of doing their job.

Of course that is all pointless anyway as this article is a clear attack on unions and trying to claim that unions want everyone to be drunk and on drugs while working. Instead the union actually did what it was supposed to do and protect employees terminated wrongly. Perhaps the unions are needed if this is what the employer does when they think they can. Maybe we do need unions in place to stop employers from overreaching into workers private lives. Employers are already trying to fire women for using their paychecks to buy birth control. Employers already fire people for smoking tobacco products on their free time. Employers already fire people for getting caught going out and drinking on their free time. Maybe if this sort of thing is stopped by unions it makes sense to have them in place.
 

It doesn't matter, it is their break. if they return to work and are impaired you drug test them and then fire them if they are too intoxicated to work. You don't get to fire them just for having a drink. Sorry anti-union people, but in this case the union did the right thing and showed it is actually needed because the car manufacturer stepped way out of line into [people's free time.
 
It doesn't matter, it is their break. if they return to work and are impaired you drug test them and then fire them if they are too intoxicated to work. You don't get to fire them just for having a drink. Sorry anti-union people, but in this case the union did the right thing and showed it is actually needed because the car manufacturer stepped way out of line into [people's free time.

They cannot be drunk or stoned at work, which is the consequence of smoking pot or drinking. You do not get un-drunk or un-stoned as soon as your break is over.

If they are stoned or drunk at the job, those jobs can't be very important. This is a good example of why Detroit is in the position it is today.
 
It doesn't matter, it is their break. if they return to work and are impaired you drug test them and then fire them if they are too intoxicated to work. You don't get to fire them just for having a drink. Sorry anti-union people, but in this case the union did the right thing and showed it is actually needed because the car manufacturer stepped way out of line into [people's free time.

They were fired but the unions got them their jobs back. It demonstrates the seriousness of the workers, their reliability and their work ethic, plus they were doing it all in a public park.
 
Chrysler workers canned for drinking on the job reinstated | Fox News




So we the taxpayers bail out the unions car companies, employees are caught drinking on their lunch break, going back to work under the influence, are fired and now they get their jobs back? And some wonder why anyone has a problem with unions?
Wow, a handful of employees out of what 20,000 or 30,000 employees were caught having a liquid lunch? So what, haven't you ever had a glass of wine or beer with lunch? I don't think it's unique. Anyway, how do we know these employees were really reinstated as FoxNews suggests?


Michigan is currently trying to pass a right to work law so don't you find the timing of this story a tad suspicious? Because I sure do...especially since coming from FoxNews.
 
Wow, a handful of employees out of what 20,000 or 30,000 employees were caught having a liquid lunch? So what, haven't you ever had a glass of wine or beer with lunch? I don't think it's unique. Anyway, how do we know these employees were really reinstated as FoxNews suggests?


Michigan is currently trying to pass a right to work law so don't you find the timing of this story a tad suspicious? Because I sure do...especially since coming from FoxNews.

The story occurred a year ago resulting from tips from co-workers who didn't want to work with drunks and potheads. This is the story. Chrysler Workers in Michigan Caught Smoking & Drinking - "Again" 7-14-2011 - YouTube
 
Chrysler workers canned for drinking on the job reinstated | Fox News




So we the taxpayers bail out the unions car companies, employees are caught drinking on their lunch break, going back to work under the influence, are fired and now they get their jobs back? And some wonder why anyone has a problem with unions?
Are you suggesting that this kind of thing doesn't occur with non-union employees? If so then you might be interested in buying a bridge. Or how about some swampland in Florida? Beachfront property in Arizona?
 
Back
Top Bottom